Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a Fixed Penalty Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because there are other organisations better placed to consider some of the issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for alleged littering.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and emails about the FPN. I also considered Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council issued a FPN for alleged littering. Mr X tried challenging the fine using the portal but could not do so. In response to his complaint the Council passed his case to the FPN team who considered his challenge.
5. Mr X submitted medical evidence. He subsequently raised some complaints including procedural faults due to evidence not being disclosed, that the Council ignored his medical evidence leading to indirect discrimination, and that the Council misspelt his name on the FPN. He also said the Council’s handling of the case had damaged his health.
6. The Council reviewed the case and cancelled the FPN. This was, in part, because Mr X’s name had not been recorded correctly on the FPN. The case did not proceed to court and Mr X did not make any payments.
7. Mr X has repeated his complaints. He wants the Council to acknowledge all the faults in the handling of the FPN and the impact on his health. Mr X wants compensation and for the Council improve its procedures.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. Councils should give people the opportunity to challenge a FPN informally before issuing a court summons if the fine is not paid. Mr X successfully used the review process, and the Council cancelled the FPN. Mr X explained he had difficulty using the portal but this did not cause an injustice because he was still able to have a review.
9. Mr X has made many complaints regarding the Council’s handling of the FPN. However, I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation or ask the Council to make procedural changes.
10. Mr X alleges the Council discriminated against him in relation to the Equality Act; specifically, he has made a complaint of indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination may occur when a council applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. I have not seen anything to suggest this occurred, but we cannot decide if there has been a breach of the Equality Act or discrimination. This is a matter Mr X would need to pursue in court; alternatively, he could contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
11. Mr X says the events linked to the FPN have damaged his health and he wants compensation. Again, this is a matter Mr X would need to address through the courts as we cannot decide if a council has acted in such a way that it is responsible for a negative impact on someone’s health. We also do not have the expertise to determine the amount of payment, should a payment be warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because there are other organisations better placed to consider some aspects of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman